What Might Have Been

[ProSense]

I found this interesting. I assume this hypothetical doesn't include a primary run by Obama, and it also shows how well positioned Obama, as the Democratic nominee, was at the start of this campaign.

What Might Have Been

Kevin Drum asks:

Now, suppose Kerry were running this year and therefore had the following three advantages over his previous self: (a) he was running after eight years of Republican rule instead of four, (b) the economy sucked, and (c) he had a fantastic fundraising advantage over his Republican opponent.

Question 1: how well do you think Kerry would do? Question 2: how well do you think Obama is going to do this year? Question 3: how big is the difference between the answers to Q1 and Q2?

I think (c) shouldn’t be added into the experiment. You can’t treat Obama’s spectacular fundraising success as exogenous to his individual appeal as a candidate or to his campaign’s particular organizational and tactical gambits. Rather, I think the way to specify the hypothetical would be to wonder what would have happened if instead of offering tepid support for the war and running for president in 2004, Kerry had offered mild opposition to the war and ran for president in 2008. I think he’d be doing pretty darn well, though presumably with a slightly different electoral coalition behind him than Obama has.

Yglesias mischaracterizes Kerry's position on the war to take away from the fact that Kerry built a strong fundraising organization in 2004. In fact, the fundraising records Obama broke in the primary belonged to Kerry.

Two interesting comment from the link:

I’ve seen no evidence that Obama created his fundraising abilities himself — its more a reflection of the moment, as it was with Dean. When Kerry became the nominee, he raised funds at a faster clip than Dean had. Four years later, its progressed even further.

Hillary Clinton went toe-to-toe with Obama in fundraising even after her defeat appeared inevitable, which is really, really hard to do.

Obama’s run a decent campaign, but this was his to lose from the start. Only a ridiculously incompetent dem could lose this year.
link

I’m a John Kerry constituent. He’s been a political hero of mine since he ran for Lt. Governor.

A candidate would could fire people up IS the real John Kerry.

That Shrummified a-hole we saw in 2004 was not the real John Kerry.

link

The point is that a foundation was laid, and Obama knew how to take advantage of it.

But to link Sarah Palin to all this is to seriously misunderstand the differences between Dean's legacy and whatever Palin will bequeath to the conservative base. First, Dean's model of fundraising was arguably his greatest contribution to how Democrats finance their candidates. John Kerry built upon this model but clearly the true heir is the fundraising juggernaut of Barack Obama. Sarah Palin might bring in the crowds and the money, but she isn't fundamentally changing the way conservatives fund candidates; instead she is merely a proxy meant to make conservatives open their wallets in the first place.

link

Still, for Democrats, 2008 is different from 2004 in terms of fundraising, just ask El Tinklenberg.

[beachmom]

1. Well, apparently, Kerry is going to outperform Obama in Mass.

So it seems to me he would have done very well. But for unfair reasons like race, and for fair reasons like experience coupled with a change of policy. There is an advantage for Obama, however, that Kerry would not have: AA turnout which may be unprecedented. I am not sure Kerry would have been competing as much as Obama is in GA and NC because of a high turnout of AA's. So where one hand loses, the other gains. Also, the youth are very excited about Obama.

[ProSense]

3. Agree.

Obama has the benefit of being a history making candidate. Still, the foundation was there, and the confluence of circumstances (Bush's policies, etc.) are factors in the dynamics of this campaign.

The Repubs having to fight for their political lives is an example. I don't think McCain would be the candidate under normal circumstances because the Repub. base doesn't find him appealing.

[politicasista]

6. And Obama has inspired

people, young, middle-aged, and/or old that have never paid attention to politics or never voted before until now to make a difference and change the country for the better.

I agree with you about the South and the AA vote. Turnout has been impressive. :)

[karynnj]

2. One measure might be that

in December 2003, Bush beat generic Democrat (and Dean) by double digits, two months later John Kerry polled as competitive with Bush. This shows that he was an exceptional candidate. Obama, possibly due to race or maybe because McCain is better than other Republicans is just now doing as well against him as generic Democrat does against generic Republican.

I think that Obama has had as many "gaffes" as Kerry - "spread the wealth" and "bitter" are as bad as the confusion at the Grand Canyon and the $87 million. But, BOTH had far fewer than most. I think Kerry was a more powerful debater, but Obama really improved between the primary and the general election.

On Obama's side, I think the reason Kerry was "punished" more for any slip or error, is that his history on anti-war, the Contras, and BCCI has made many established people unhappy with him. Obama doesn't have that baggage - good as the work was.

[ProSense]

4. Here's an interesting and related point

Political Science Electoral Might Have Beens

[karynnj]

5. Nice link - he makes the point I was trying to make with the

earlier generic comparisons - which had problems because those polls were substantially before the election. That is a far better more elegant case - backs the case some of us have made that with an mediocre 2004 candidate we would have had a 7 point loss, which would have been as demoralizing as what may hit the Republicans.

I think both Kerry and Obama are exceptional people - and better choices than we usually get. Even though I already voted this year, Kerry is still the best person I ever voted for (IMO).